[Kat]

Took the upper bridge once backtracking to Goldmyer to avoid the river crossing (cold & high). Plus, I was excited about seeing the other "hot" spring along the trail which was supposed to be about 70 degrees warm. Boy, was I disappointed - wouldn't describe it as even lukewarm! Have to agree about those bikes - not only the trail damage, but dang I think someone is going to get hurt. I almost got nailed by two guys charging down West Tiger on their bikes last summer, not a pleasant experience.

[Quark]

Now, now....let's not stigmatize any one group. Bikes should be allowed. If they're not allowed, it would smack of the "only a select few can use the trail" way of thinking - and from what I have read on this forum, it's one of the main arguments for keeping the road open. The bicycle lobby may be one reason the FS is willing to compromise more than they may not otherwise do. The hiking community doesn't seem very powerful on it's own - it needs other user groups to help lobby efforts - BBTC, Backcountry Horsemen, etc. Regarding safety - stay off of West Tiger (afterall, it's one of the biggest biking area in King County), and if Mid Fk it becomes a big biking area stay off the Mid Fk trails on odd days. Fairly simple solution - without discriminating against any user group.

[Malachai Constant]

Do you really mean East Tiger? West Tiger has been closed to Mtn. bikes for years but, East Tiger is one of the best single tracks in the state.

[Quark]

East, West - same difference. The onliest difference is what side of that top hump it's on. Wow, it just hit me! : I bet I shouldn't have said that in my interview with DeLorme: I didn't get the job. They say hind sight is 20-20, or whatever...

[Tom]

[Quark]

People are gumbling about bikes and saying they shouldn't be allowed. Sure they have access via hiking like everyone else; so then using the same argument, why isn't it ok to gate the Mid Fk - afterall those without a key aren't barred from access; they can walk in. I'd like the road to remain open, too. What drives me nuts is the finger-pointing and unwillingness to see anyone else's point of view (i.e. inholders having access - rights to easement is one of the earliest rulings in law). Maybe I'm on the wrong thread and getting issues and arguments mixed up, so I'll shut up now.

[Dante]

[Allison]

Really? Stock have been used for backcountry travel since the idea of backcountry was conceived. The horse guys are very active in doing TM. Mountain biking is huge, and there are not a lot of places left to do it. Mountain bikers tend to be fairly well-off. I just don't see that happening ever.

[Tom]

[MtnGoat]

bingo - defacto or otherwise, it's all good if you're looking to shut the gates on the users you don't like

[Quark]

Welcome to American politics. Lots of compromise because the public is comprised of lots of usertypes = an ocotopus. It wouldn't surprise me if the FS needed the biker groups to help get their Alternative pushed and they and the bikers got together to get the word out, maybe even tear down Land Use Proposal signs at the trailheads (just joking). It's politics in America - you rub my back, I'll rub yours. It's the same with various special interest groups supporting the trail park pass - they agreed to support it if the FS would be obligated to disclose fund expenditure and provide a means for volunteers to get a free annual pass. That's why hiker agendas don't easily win; they're not unified; they have many, many different interests, not just one such as backcountry cycling, or horses.

[MtnGoat]

[Kat]

[Malachai Constant]

BBTC opposed the closure until they were given the alternate day opening of the riverside trail, half a cup is better than none, I guess

[Kat]